religion as a personal thing...fine...
witch-hunts against competing beliefs...not so much...
from my studies of religions/spiritual-beliefs, it is few and far between that one finds such a "system" that respects each individual's sovereignty...
rather, one's beliefs tend to influence how one "wants" others to "believe" and/or "behave"...
and those "wants" spill over into the mobocracy's insatiable desire to control and loot others...for their own benefit and peace-of-mind...
there is a reason why that flag says "Don't Tread On Me"...
christian crusades, witch-hunts, the kkk, and the black panthers...
all flawed and failed attempts to divide and conquer using hate and discontent of others...for whatever the reason...
The problem is that religion is incompatible with rational philosophies which have spawned the majority of libertarian political theories to date. Thus, the schism between the religious and the non-religious libertarians is one that is far older than the current wave of atheistic tendencies.
It's Free Talk Live not Libertarian Talk Live. Should Ian also make it clear when he gives relationship advice that it's his personal, cultural views and not libertarian views?
On a related topic, liberty is about religion for me. I don't see any rational reason why man should be endowed with inalienable rights but monkeys aren't.
As soon as a monkey articulates why he has inalienable rights, he will have them.
I was just about to start calling anarcho-capitalism "political atheism" when FTL took a quasi-religious turn and it no longer felt right... :cry:
That schism is completely unnecessary. Religion is religion. Libertarianism is a political philosphy. They're aren't incompatible because they are not competing for the same thing.They are the same in respect to the nature of ethics. Political theory is only possible by recognizing what ethics are consistent with it. And ethics are only possible by recognizing what epistemology is consistent with them. And epistemology is only possible by what metaphysics is consistent with it.
That schism is completely unnecessary. Religion is religion. Libertarianism is a political philosphy. They're aren't incompatible because they are not competing for the same thing.They are the same in respect to the nature of ethics. Political theory is only possible by recognizing what ethics are consistent with it. And ethics are only possible by recognizing what epistemology is consistent with them. And epistemology is only possible by what metaphysics is consistent with it.
In essence, every political theory depends upon a metaphysics to justify everything it proposes indirectly, and the metaphysics (ethics, and epistemology) of the vast majority of religions are wholly incompatible with the ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics that justify libertarian political theory. It's just that simple.
That schism is completely unnecessary. Religion is religion. Libertarianism is a political philosphy. They're aren't incompatible because they are not competing for the same thing.They are the same in respect to the nature of ethics. Political theory is only possible by recognizing what ethics are consistent with it. And ethics are only possible by recognizing what epistemology is consistent with them. And epistemology is only possible by what metaphysics is consistent with it.
In essence, every political theory depends upon a metaphysics to justify everything it proposes indirectly, and the metaphysics (ethics, and epistemology) of the vast majority of religions are wholly incompatible with the ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics that justify libertarian political theory. It's just that simple.
Wow, that was unexpected. I disagree for entirely different reasons than I thought I would. The WWJD crowd would all be libertarian if they were consistent, Jesus never initiated force on anyone nor did he recommend anyone else do so. That's in contrast to the organized Christian religions that aren't about being christlike at all. That's the ultimate irony about Christianity, I don't think Jesus would have anything to do with it.
As soon as a monkey articulates why he has inalienable rights, he will have them.
I know a LOT of humans who can't articulate why they have inalienable rights. Should they have them?
As soon as a monkey articulates why he has inalienable rights, he will have them.
I know a LOT of humans who can't articulate why they have inalienable rights. Should they have them?
But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights?
He didn't like all those assholes though. He was anti-prostitute stoning. The Jews of the day... yeah, they sucked. I don't equate Jesus w/ the bible at all other than they write about him in the new testament but he can't be accused of condoning the new testament because it wasn't written when he was around and he never suggested such a thing should be done. I don't figure he was overly pro-old testament either for several reasons like when he was asked about the commandments he was all forget that shit just be nice to everyone all the time and you're set. Mark 12:28-34
In essence, every political theory depends upon a metaphysics to justify everything it proposes indirectly, and the metaphysics (ethics, and epistemology) of the vast majority of religions are wholly incompatible with the ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics that justify libertarian political theory. It's just that simple.
So are you saying that a Christian can't by definition be a libertarian?
But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights? Cornelius and Zera don't count.
But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights? Cornelius and Zera don't count.
Yes. Try and take something from a chimpanzee and see what happens.
So are you saying that a Christian can't by definition be a libertarian?
You don't get it, that was the romanticizing of the man. The sect of Jews that he was supposedly a member of were an apocalyptic cult that believed that the end was near and they were to help the new Messiah to rise up and overthrow the pagans across the globe. They were violent little fucks, so that suggests Jesus wasn't any less nutty by implication. So, no, Jesus was never cool. He was a drug addled, pagan hating Jew. Nothing more, nothing less.
As soon as a monkey articulates why he has inalienable rights, he will have them.
I know a LOT of humans who can't articulate why they have inalienable rights. Should they have them?
But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights?
Yes. Try and take something from a chimpanzee and see what happens.
You don't get it, that was the romanticizing of the man. The sect of Jews that he was supposedly a member of were an apocalyptic cult that believed that the end was near and they were to help the new Messiah to rise up and overthrow the pagans across the globe. They were violent little fucks, so that suggests Jesus wasn't any less nutty by implication. So, no, Jesus was never cool. He was a drug addled, pagan hating Jew. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's possible, all we have is the Bible and guesswork and I don't trust either.
I've tried to take a bone from a done and he didn't like it. Does that mean he has rights?
So are you saying that a Christian can't by definition be a libertarian?
Yes.
So are you saying that a Christian can't by definition be a libertarian?
Yes.
How do you explain so many self-described Christian libertarians?
Yes. Try and take something from a chimpanzee and see what happens.As soon as a monkey articulates why he has inalienable rights, he will have them.
I know a LOT of humans who can't articulate why they have inalienable rights. Should they have them?
But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights?
I've tried to take a bone from a done and he didn't like it. Does that mean he has rights?
How do you explain so many self-described Christian libertarians?
Yes. Try and take something from a chimpanzee and see what happens.As soon as a monkey articulates why he has inalienable rights, he will have them.
I know a LOT of humans who can't articulate why they have inalienable rights. Should they have them?
But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights?
I've tried to take a bone from a done and he didn't like it. Does that mean he has rights?
Do you mean a dog? And you didn't ask about who has rights-- you asked about who can speak up for their rights. If a dog doesn't like you taking his bone, what other explanation is there than that he thinks he has a right to the bone and you're violating it?
But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights? Cornelius and Zera don't count.But they are human, right. Can you name one monkey who has spoken up for their rights? Cornelius and Zera don't count.
I can't name any off the top of my head but I've seen some non-human primates make it very clear that they didn't think they should be in a cage and they didn't think the people caging them had any right to do so. They might have been remarkably eloquent in monkey speak, I don't know.
And this:Yes. Try and take something from a chimpanzee and see what happens.
You only make my point for me though. "But, they are human". That's correct, it's a religious belief that humans are endowed by the creator with the inalienable rights to life and liberty, even if they're too stupid to know it.
Prove rights exist.
It is irrational to believe in rights.
to wit, my basic inherent right to Life, Liberty, and Property ALWAYS trumps your efforts to subvert them...So if I shoot you dead, you will come back to life?
to wit, my basic inherent right to Life, Liberty, and Property ALWAYS trumps your efforts to subvert them...So if I shoot you dead, you will come back to life?
Let me clarify my point. I think it is bigoted and counterproductive to read religious people out of the liberty movement. Religion and statism are not inextricably linked. Religious people are not any more statist than non-religious people. Don't judge all religious people by hypocritical adherents.I agree. I'm not a fan of the anti-religionists equating the pro liberty philosophy with atheism.
Prove rights exist. |
The economic theories behind the existence of "negative" human rights (life, liberty, property) are rational and deeply rooted in the fundamental causes of the human civilization, but ...
... if all else fails ...
... the way you prove rights exist ...
... is by killing (in self-defense) the people who say they don't!
Alex pulled a win? WTF?
Is that scientific?
The economic theories behind the existence of "negative" human rights (life, liberty, property) are rational and deeply rooted in the fundamental causes of the human civilization, but ...
... if all else fails ...
... the way you prove rights exist ...
... is by killing (in self-defense) the people who say they don't!
That schism is completely unnecessary. Religion is religion. Libertarianism is a political philosphy. They're aren't incompatible because they are not competing for the same thing. Fascism, communism, liberarlism, conservatism, etc. are incompatible with libertarianism because they are all political philosophies.
Alex pulled a win? WTF? |
Isn't that also how you prove the existence of G-d? |
Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).Rights are not essential for civilization, and just because believing in something constitutes a competitive advantage doesn't mean that something exists.
You can't use hard science to figure that out.Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).Rights are not essential for civilization, and just because believing in something constitutes a competitive advantage doesn't mean that something exists.
How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?
dominant system of morals.
Rights are not essential for civilization [...] |
Rights exist because they are a social construct based on a dominant system of morals. |
How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?
Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?
Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?
Objectivism is the scientific method applied to philosophy.
However, much of what can be said to be rights, relies on certain metaphysical presuppositions.
Although even if morals are purely a matter of personal choice and have no fundamental existent roots, it is still possible, and preferable, to have an objectively consonant set of rights than a relativist set of rights.
If you take, even just a preference for the non aggression principle, then by consistently and objectively applying it to every area of morals, you will end up with a consonant moral framework.
Also, the idea of behavioral axioms leads. I.e. the kind of people who think its okay to steal from you have already shown that they think its okay to steal, so by restituting yourself, i.e. "stealing" your stuff back, you have not breached any sort of moral engagement.
In the same way, people who initiate violence on you are explicitly demonstrating that they accept violence as an acceptable mode of interaction, in which it would be very hard to find a reason why it is not reasonable for you use violence to defend yourself.
Of course non of this leads to any fundamental stone tablet rights, but the nature of voluntary agreement, coupled with the concept of private societies means this isn't a huge problem, as it won't be very hard to find lots of people who agree to the NAP, and then any moral rulings can be judged on top of the agreement people made.
I think there is scope for objectively defined morals, based on existent concepts, although I think human understanding of the origin of energy, and the nature and origin of spacetime will need to be vastly improved, in order to fully flesh out a concept of existence, and thereby the nature of "rights" within that existence, especially as so far, the nature of consciousness and sentience through energy is very poorly understood, though clearly there are a vast amount of universal features that are conducive to this.
So far I have heard no real solid argument or proof for how people can own land. The concept of trading land already owned is perfectly consonant, but the very process of originally obtaining land ownership seems extremely arbitrary and non rational to me.
The "finders keepers" model may work, but I see no reason why you somehow are granted negative rights through the process of finding land. If I am the first man on jupiter can I claim the whole planet?
“My father had a couple of kids at the beginning of the Depression. There was not much employment. Not much welfare. People barely got by. People were tougher then.”
“We live in more of a pussy generation now, where everybody’s become used to saying, “Well, how do we handle it psychologically?” In those days, you just punched the bully back and duked it out. Even if the guy was older and could push you around, at least you were respected for fighting back, and you’d be left alone from then on.”
“I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when the pussy generation started. Maybe when people started asking about the meaning of life.”
They are the same in respect to the nature of ethics. Political theory is only possible by recognizing what ethics are consistent with it. And ethics are only possible by recognizing what epistemology is consistent with them. And epistemology is only possible by what metaphysics is consistent with it.Who is this type of post geared toward? The small minority of forum users that have extensively studied philosophy?
In essence, every political theory depends upon a metaphysics to justify everything it proposes indirectly, and the metaphysics (ethics, and epistemology) of the vast majority of religions are wholly incompatible with the ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics that justify libertarian political theory. It's just that simple.
Everyone, because everyone has their own philosophy stated and unstated.They are the same in respect to the nature of ethics. Political theory is only possible by recognizing what ethics are consistent with it. And ethics are only possible by recognizing what epistemology is consistent with them. And epistemology is only possible by what metaphysics is consistent with it.Who is this type of post geared toward? The small minority of forum users that have extensively studied philosophy?
In essence, every political theory depends upon a metaphysics to justify everything it proposes indirectly, and the metaphysics (ethics, and epistemology) of the vast majority of religions are wholly incompatible with the ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics that justify libertarian political theory. It's just that simple.
Back on topic: Just because the vast majority of religions as they are currently practiceed are wholly incompatible with libertarianism does not mean all religion is whollly incompatible with libertarianism.Here are three questions.
I am a pro-liberty person who believes in a Creator. My beliefs do not require that you (or society in general) act the same as I do.
1) Which do you think is primary: Existence or Consciousness?
I don't think there is a clear distinction. I'm waiting for science to learn more about the existence of
consciousness (and the consciousness of existence.)
2) What is the justification for your ethics (Why follow them?)?
The full explanation would be very lengthy. To sum up: a large influence was the culture in which I was raised,
and my path from there to where I am now has been mostly due to personal study of nature and the Creator.
3) Do you trust your mind and your senses?
Good question, and one I have struggled with for years. The best I can say is that I do not completely trust
my senses and my experiences. I place more faith in deduction and reasoning, but I still make lots of mistakes.
1) Which do you think is primary: Existence or Consciousness?
I don't think there is a clear distinction. I'm waiting for science to learn more about the existence of
consciousness (and the consciousness of existence.)
It's easy enough to know. Yell a mountain, "BREAK APART!" If it doesn't, then you know Existence is primary.
2) What is the justification for your ethics (Why follow them?)?
The full explanation would be very lengthy. To sum up: a large influence was the culture in which I was raised,
and my path from there to where I am now has been mostly due to personal study of nature and the Creator.
But really, why follow ethics? Because it's right for X, Y, and Z reasons?
3) Do you trust your mind and your senses?
Good question, and one I have struggled with for years. The best I can say is that I do not completely trust
my senses and my experiences. I place more faith in deduction and reasoning, but I still make lots of mistakes.
If you cannot trust your senses then you can never trust your mind, one is derived from the other.
I think you're jumping to conclusions. Just because my eyes interpret the following picture as moving does not mean my mind is incapable of figuring it out. Like I said, I put more faith in my ability to deduct and reason than my ability to sense and experience (drugs have taught me experiences can be completely fabricated.)
You asked if I trust my mind and my senses, to which I replied, "The best I can say is that I do not completely trust my senses and my experiences. I place more faith in deduction and reasoning, but I still make lots of mistakes."
When it comes to making decisions about what is true and what is not, I place more emphasis on deduction and reasoning than purely senses and experiences. I'm not sure what the contention is.
forget that shit just be nice to everyone all the time and you're set. Mark 12:28-34
God only exists on Friday. Satan on Monday.
Zeus and Thor split up the rest of the time. Eris and J. R. Bob Dobbs play backup in case Zeus and Thor are busy turning into interesting things to have sex with, or smashing shit.
Buddah doesn't exist at all, and he wouldn't want it any other way.
I am right and everyone else is doomed to eternal torment. Now please, join my religion and SEND ME MONEY.
Quote
“I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when the pussy generation started...”
New Ecolitan Version (NEV) of the Bible :lol:
God only exists on Friday. Satan on Monday.
Zeus and Thor split up the rest of the time. Eris and J. R. Bob Dobbs play backup in case Zeus and Thor are busy turning into interesting things to have sex with, or smashing shit.
Buddah doesn't exist at all, and he wouldn't want it any other way.
I am right and everyone else is doomed to eternal torment. Now please, join my religion and SEND ME MONEY.
I would except I know you're wrong about God and Satan... They're the same dude and therefore have to exist on the same day. I call schism from the dualists.
God only exists on Friday. Satan on Monday.
Zeus and Thor split up the rest of the time. Eris and J. R. Bob Dobbs play backup in case Zeus and Thor are busy turning into interesting things to have sex with, or smashing shit.
Buddah doesn't exist at all, and he wouldn't want it any other way.
I am right and everyone else is doomed to eternal torment. Now please, join my religion and SEND ME MONEY.
I would except I know you're wrong about God and Satan... They're the same dude and therefore have to exist on the same day. I call schism from the dualists.
nope they arent. God is God and He created Lucifer. Who became the Accuser (Satan). And rebelled against mighty God. (the Dragon)
God only exists on Friday. Satan on Monday.
Zeus and Thor split up the rest of the time. Eris and J. R. Bob Dobbs play backup in case Zeus and Thor are busy turning into interesting things to have sex with, or smashing shit.
Buddah doesn't exist at all, and he wouldn't want it any other way.
I am right and everyone else is doomed to eternal torment. Now please, join my religion and SEND ME MONEY.
I would except I know you're wrong about God and Satan... They're the same dude and therefore have to exist on the same day. I call schism from the dualists.
nope they arent. God is God and He created Lucifer. Who became the Accuser (Satan). And rebelled against mighty God. (the Dragon)
Who do you think makes you think this is so? Lucifer aka Satan.
"the things of the God are foolishness to the things of the flesh."
"and they traded the truth for a lie"
"And God sent them a strong delusion, because they refused the truth but gave themselves to a lie"
Oh and guess where Christianity came from?Judiasm.
...
And now for my serious take... I don't think libertarianism and religion are mutually exclusive, but I do think many particular religious beliefs are incompatible to one degree or another. If you think your religious beliefs should be enforced through force, you are not libertarian - your liberty philosophy has a blind spot. I think that is why I have found a shockingly (to me at first anyway) number of atheists in the LP. I have been to 2 state conventions and 1 national. A notable exception would be most of the people who voted for Bob Barr to be the LP nominee, mostly from Southern states. (I voted for Mary Ruwart right up to the last ballot despite the outlandish child molestation mudslinging campaign.)
I even find many of the people attached to the Ron Paul campaign to be unlibertarian because of this blind spot if you will. I was a huge Ron Paul supporter and still am given he is light years closer to true libertarianism than his closest Congressional member rival. I disagree with him on abortion, and my big beef with him there is his disrespect for his own condemnation of commerce clause abuse when he voted for the partial birth abortion ban. But that's a constitutional issue, not libertarianism per se. When it comes to immigration, I think he could be more libertarian even considering the pragmatism of border protection until we get rid of the welfare state.
But after the primary was decided, it seemed those who hung onto the C4L/Ron Paul movement around here anyway were more John Birch and Constitution Party than libertarian. They believe in God, Country and the Pledge of Allegiance in that order. They don't mind exercising a little uninitiated force when someone shows disrespect for their guy in the sky or the star spangled banner. I find that mindset disgusting. They aren't content to let gay people be equal citizens and they usually have a hard time with legalizing drugs, especially the non-pot variety.
I've had more than one person noting my atheist and libertarian viewpoints say something like, "You just don't like anyone else telling you what to do." and I would say they are very right about that.
i personally apologize for some of the harsh Christian people that yall have talked to. But here i must say one thing. Liberty is good. License isnt. This is why i say this; you cant just do what you want to do and not affect anyone else. But i understand that you have a harsh view of us Christians, and possibly even Jesus. Now as far ive found and studied, Jesus operated off of two central truths: love and truth. If you love someone you will tell them the truth. If you tell the truth to someone that shows that you love them.
Now also truth is truth. no matter what you want it to be. Its not relative. 2+2=4 it doesnt equal 5 no matter how much you want it to. also you cant take a two way drive down a one way street; if you do then you will have a crash. Now, as far as the hurting people thing. You cannot just do whatever you like even if you do not think you are not hurting anyone. The law is the law and most logical laws are meant to protect you not hurt you.
Thats my two blurbs. By the way i am Eric Lee but i am a conservative Christian. I am extremely accepting of other people, but i do not agree with what they do; such as what my Savior Jesus calls sexual immorality. This includes homosexuality. I WANT TO MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR; I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS OR ANY PEOPLE FOR ANY REASONS. Not agreeing with the behavior of someone and standing up for what is right and morally responsible is not hate. It is however free speech and not hate speech. No i do not agree with the lifestyle, but i still love the person. Please understand i mean no bigotry or harm in saying this.
By the way, i HATE religion! What real Christians have is relationships with God thru Jesus Christ. Not Religion. Real Relationship.
Jesus love be with you,
Eric Lee
As a corollary, there is an assumption that libertarians are socially liberal, libertines or hedonists.Giles is that you? :lol:
The Mises Institute folks are culturally conservative while the pseudo-libertarians at Reason and people on the BBS are more culturally "liberal". I.E., they're into porn, tattoos, drugs, etc. I would venture that most real libertarians are culturally moderate.Bull...shit. Unless you know everyone that works under Lew Rockwell you cannot state that everyone of them is a social conservative. Hoppe excluded, of course, then again that fucktard should be evicted from Earth, imho.
For example, they don't hate gays but probably think its gross. They wouldn't want their kids to get into porn or prostitution although they don't think it should be a crime.
i personally apologize for some of the harsh Christian people that yall have talked to. But here i must say one thing. Liberty is good. License isnt. This is why i say this; you cant just do what you want to do and not affect anyone else. But i understand that you have a harsh view of us Christians, and possibly even Jesus. Now as far ive found and studied, Jesus operated off of two central truths: love and truth. If you love someone you will tell them the truth. If you tell the truth to someone that shows that you love them.
Now also truth is truth. no matter what you want it to be. Its not relative. 2+2=4 it doesnt equal 5 no matter how much you want it to. also you cant take a two way drive down a one way street; if you do then you will have a crash. Now, as far as the hurting people thing. You cannot just do whatever you like even if you do not think you are not hurting anyone. The law is the law and most logical laws are meant to protect you not hurt you.
Thats my two blurbs. By the way i am Eric Lee but i am a conservative Christian. I am extremely accepting of other people, but i do not agree with what they do; such as what my Savior Jesus calls sexual immorality. This includes homosexuality. I WANT TO MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR; I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS OR ANY PEOPLE FOR ANY REASONS. Not agreeing with the behavior of someone and standing up for what is right and morally responsible is not hate. It is however free speech and not hate speech. No i do not agree with the lifestyle, but i still love the person. Please understand i mean no bigotry or harm in saying this.
By the way, i HATE religion! What real Christians have is relationships with God thru Jesus Christ. Not Religion. Real Relationship.
Jesus love be with you,
Eric Lee
This is very well said. As a corollary, there is an assumption that libertarians are socially liberal, libertines or hedonists. Some are, most are not. Libertarians are socially tolerant. Tolerance does not imply approval. The Mises Institute folks are culturally conservative while the pseudo-libertarians at Reason and people on the BBS are more culturally "liberal". I.E., they're into porn, tattoos, drugs, etc. I would venture that most real libertarians are culturally moderate. For example, they don't hate gays but probably think its gross. They wouldn't want their kids to get into porn or prostitution although they don't think it should be a crime.
Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods are Catholics, I believe. The late Murray Rothbard was a culturally conservative atheist. Karen DeCoster is a self-described paleolibertarian.Yet they don't propose to change the culture of the world, which makes them very much 'liberal' in their religious sects (Catholics are very much pro-government in the vast majority of cases...).
That term came about as a way to for libertarians to distinguish themselves from what they viewed as fake libertarians at Reason and inside the Beltway.Ah, you are Giles from the Mises Institute Forum, then, because Giles harps on Reason like the majority of the fagberts that seem to think that anyone that's socially liberal cannot be a libertarian (pro-tip: social liberalism and political/ethical liberalism are corollaries).
...Another dipshit referenced but my point was never refuted...
I agree, which is why I'm a big fan of Rand.dominant system of morals.
Which should lead one to desire the discovery of a theory of objective morality. The rights derived from it would be valid, so long as the theory behind it is something more than an opinion, which it would be, being objective and all.
Yup. I think more hardcore christians need to work a bit more on their study of the old testament. No offence to the Christians out there because many of them are great folks, its just that I see worshipping Jesus as a bit too close to idolatry.God only exists on Friday. Satan on Monday.
Zeus and Thor split up the rest of the time. Eris and J. R. Bob Dobbs play backup in case Zeus and Thor are busy turning into interesting things to have sex with, or smashing shit.
Buddah doesn't exist at all, and he wouldn't want it any other way.
I am right and everyone else is doomed to eternal torment. Now please, join my religion and SEND ME MONEY.
I would except I know you're wrong about God and Satan... They're the same dude and therefore have to exist on the same day. I call schism from the dualists.
nope they arent. God is God and He created Lucifer. Who became the Accuser (Satan). And rebelled against mighty God. (the Dragon)
Nope, Satan isn't Lucifer. You need to read Job again, he never rebels at any time. Only Christians and proto-Christians invented Lucifer. Judaism doesn't operate under the same dualistic intentions, either, so Christianity doesn't even have a theological leg to stand on when considering just that fact alone.
Okay, let me explain my point again: where in your philosophies is possible to support a Judaic/Christian/Islamic faith is possible to validate the concept of universal negative rights? It's not very hard to answer (hint, there is no justification of rights in religious faith of any kind). Now, fucking answer it and stop dodging like a coward.I'm confused. Can you rephrase this?
guy in the sky is supposed to be all-knowing...which would mean that guy in the sky knows BEFORE you are created...whether or not you are going to heaven or hell...
sounds pretty fucked up to me that I would create a child only to pour gasoline on it and set it on fire for eternity...
merciful my fucking ass...
all bow before the guy in the sky with the gasoline and matches...that's ready, willing, and able to set your ass on fire if you don't play UNO just so...
onward christian soldiers...and all that bullshit...
you and your guy in the sky can go find a deserted island to run your supertanker full of gasoline into...
just keep that shit totally to yourself and your fellow gasoline-and-matches guy in the sky worshipers...
Well to answer your question, let me clear up a few errors on your part...................
1. Nobody is made to choose God or Satan, God cannot make us choose Him and He cannot make us choose Satan. We choose it, it is called FREEWILL.
2. When you choose yourself, your enjoyment of life more than your purpose in life (to make a positive impact in other peoples lives and become like Jesus in that impact),
you choose selfishness and hedonism more than selflessness, the pursuit of holiness, and choosing to know and do what you know is right and wrong; but have seared your consceince because you dont want to face that reality of being held accountable for your actions; by God, and mankind.
3. God chose to send Jesus down from Heaven, and use Him as your payment for sin; or the fact that no man or woman ever could measure up to moral perfection that God requires so Jesus was that perfection made manifest thru His life on earth.
4. When it comes to Jesus you have these 4 choices as to what you choose to accept about the truth of Jesus Christ's words
a. Jesus was a liar
b. Jesus was crazy
c. Jesus was a good teacher or prophet
d. Jesus was God the Son (Immanuel)"God with Us" and died willingly and rose again to take our place for our sin that we chose to commit, and defeat the sting of death once and for all all for all those who love, are in love with (agape) and trust as both Lord and Savior.
if you have any questions at all i would be glad to go over these truths with you, my email is Hispainismygain@yahoo.com
God's love be with you,
Eric Lee
guy in the sky is supposed to be all-knowing...which would mean that guy in the sky knows BEFORE you are created...whether or not you are going to heaven or hell...
sounds pretty fucked up to me that I would create a child only to pour gasoline on it and set it on fire for eternity...
merciful my fucking ass...
all bow before the guy in the sky with the gasoline and matches...that's ready, willing, and able to set your ass on fire if you don't play UNO just so...
onward christian soldiers...and all that bullshit...
you and your guy in the sky can go find a deserted island to run your supertanker full of gasoline into...
just keep that shit totally to yourself and your fellow gasoline-and-matches guy in the sky worshipers...
Well to answer your question, let me clear up a few errors on your part...................
1. Nobody is made to choose God or Satan, God cannot make us choose Him and He cannot make us choose Satan. We choose it, it is called FREEWILL.
2. When you choose yourself, your enjoyment of life more than your purpose in life (to make a positive impact in other peoples lives and become like Jesus in that impact),
you choose selfishness and hedonism more than selflessness, the pursuit of holiness, and choosing to know and do what you know is right and wrong; but have seared your consceince because you dont want to face that reality of being held accountable for your actions; by God, and mankind.
3. God chose to send Jesus down from Heaven, and use Him as your payment for sin; or the fact that no man or woman ever could measure up to moral perfection that God requires so Jesus was that perfection made manifest thru His life on earth.
4. When it comes to Jesus you have these 4 choices as to what you choose to accept about the truth of Jesus Christ's words
a. Jesus was a liar
b. Jesus was crazy
c. Jesus was a good teacher or prophet
d. Jesus was God the Son (Immanuel)"God with Us" and died willingly and rose again to take our place for our sin that we chose to commit, and defeat the sting of death once and for all all for all those who love, are in love with (agape) and trust as both Lord and Savior.
if you have any questions at all i would be glad to go over these truths with you, my email is Hispainismygain@yahoo.com
God's love be with you,
Eric Lee
The worse thing about the concept of gods is that some people believe in them. Then, they start getting their marching orders from a mythical being. What happens is their subconscious starts whispering to them, and they fantasize this to be the "voice of God." If they are in power, as Bush was or any number of Islamic fundamentalists are, or if they are the pope, they start issuing orders based on their imaginings, thinking it is actually God talking to them.Not necessarily. There's plenty of people who believe in God and also do not believe that God "speaks to them"
"What's that, God? You want me to launch the missiles? Oh, well--you're call!"
The WWJD crowd would all be libertarian if they were consistent, Jesus never initiated force on anyone nor did he recommend anyone else do so. That's in contrast to the organized Christian religions that aren't about being christlike at all. That's the ultimate irony about Christianity, I don't think Jesus would have anything to do with it.
I disagree with all except 1) and 4)b)
EDIT:
PS: I do not believe in Satan
The WWJD crowd would all be libertarian if they were consistent, Jesus never initiated force on anyone nor did he recommend anyone else do so.
Yes.The WWJD crowd would all be libertarian if they were consistent, Jesus never initiated force on anyone nor did he recommend anyone else do so.
Jesus also didn't play frisbee, own a dog, or have sex with a woman, nor did he recommend anyone else do so. Do you think that means his followers should also refrain from such things in order to be consistent?
The WWJD crowd would all be libertarian if they were consistent, Jesus never initiated force on anyone nor did he recommend anyone else do so.
Jesus also didn't play frisbee, own a dog, or have sex with a woman, nor did he recommend anyone else do so. Do you think that means his followers should also refrain from such things in order to be consistent?
The WWJD crowd would all be libertarian if they were consistent, Jesus never initiated force on anyone nor did he recommend anyone else do so.
Jesus also didn't play frisbee, own a dog, or have sex with a woman, nor did he recommend anyone else do so. Do you think that means his followers should also refrain from such things in order to be consistent?
The WWJD crowd would all be libertarian if they were consistent, Jesus never initiated force on anyone nor did he recommend anyone else do so.
Jesus also didn't play frisbee, own a dog, or have sex with a woman, nor did he recommend anyone else do so. Do you think that means his followers should also refrain from such things in order to be consistent?
Jesus did specifically say that thing about throwing stones. So he specifically said not to hurt people even if they do things you don't like.
Yes, and "that thing about throwing stones" is unworkable and therefore useless. If nobody who has ever sinned should ever be allowed to judge that someone else has, then no justice system can ever exist and nobody can ever be punished for anything.
Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Not the most consistent guy, him.
I'm all for no one being punished for anything. Force should be about defense, not revenge.
It's not that big a deal for me, if you want to think Jesus was an evil fascist tyrant, that's OK w/ me. I don't know you're wrong and no one really has any reliable reference at all cuz the bible isn't.
I'm all for no one being punished for anything. Force should be about defense, not revenge.Jesus didn't advocate using force for defense, either. Remember the "turning the other cheek" thing?
I'm all for no one being punished for anything. Force should be about defense, not revenge.Jesus didn't advocate using force for defense, either. Remember the "turning the other cheek" thing?
I love it when people make my points for me :)
If your point was that Jesus was inconsistent regarding when force is appropriate, then that point has certainly been made.
I can't believe I'm letting you pick a fight w/ me over evidence only available in a book neither of us finds reliable about the likely opinions of guy that may or may not have ever existed
Jesus did specifically say that thing about throwing stones. So he specifically said not to hurt people even if they do things you don't like.
Hey I've wondered about that too. The whole pacifism thing I think is where Jesus completely bastardized his own religion (I don't believe it was him who did most of these things, I believe it was actually the writers of the "gospel" who did), you're not supposed to turn the other cheek so you can be hit again on the other side, you're supposed to be strong and defend yourself.
Jesus did specifically say that thing about throwing stones. So he specifically said not to hurt people even if they do things you don't like.
Are you sure he said that? Or did you just read it somewhere?
Prophecy in Daniel indicates that the messiah they were to expect was militant.
Maybe they provided "history" about Jesus indicating he was a pacifist.
Maybe the authors of the gospels were just trying to turn a bunch of militant Jews (Sicarii) into passive Jews.
I mean, it is possible, right?
btw, I always feel uncomfortable when I say or write, "Jews" because although there is nothing incorrect or demeaning about the word, but it has been said so many times with inflection indicating it is an insult, I have a gut reaction to it. I certainly don't mean to cast such a characterization on an entire race or religious group. I'll reserve that for individuals.
Hey I've wondered about that too. The whole pacifism thing I think is where Jesus completely bastardized his own religion (I don't believe it was him who did most of these things, I believe it was actually the writers of the "gospel" who did), you're not supposed to turn the other cheek so you can be hit again on the other side, you're supposed to be strong and defend yourself.
Jesus did specifically say that thing about throwing stones. So he specifically said not to hurt people even if they do things you don't like.
Are you sure he said that? Or did you just read it somewhere?
Prophecy in Daniel indicates that the messiah they were to expect was militant.
Maybe they provided "history" about Jesus indicating he was a pacifist.
Maybe the authors of the gospels were just trying to turn a bunch of militant Jews (Sicarii) into passive Jews.
I mean, it is possible, right?
btw, I always feel uncomfortable when I say or write, "Jews" because although there is nothing incorrect or demeaning about the word, but it has been said so many times with inflection indicating it is an insult, I have a gut reaction to it. I certainly don't mean to cast such a characterization on an entire race or religious group. I'll reserve that for individuals.
Hhrrmm.... There you all go again, batting around the pros and cons of a specific moral question while studiously avoiding its impact on the big picture of liberty vs. slavery....You're welcome, no extra charge.
Hhrrmm.... There you all go again, batting around the pros and cons of a specific moral question while studiously avoiding its impact on the big picture of liberty vs. slavery....You're welcome, no extra charge.
Do try and get over yourself.
Hhrrmm.... There you all go again, batting around the pros and cons of a specific moral question while studiously avoiding its impact on the big picture of liberty vs. slavery....You're welcome, no extra charge.
Do try and get over yourself.
Just being a little douchebaggish to make a point.... Really, you're one of the folks on this board who is smart and gets it. Don't you ever feel the desire to start pushing the discussion in a more productive direction? I tend to be absent from here for long stretches just because there's so much mindless jabber and endless repetition to crawl through to find something good to read. Its rough, and I know you get annoyed too.... I'm just saying, this IS our board, no one is controlling the content.... Its a perfect place to demonstrate the power of free exchange to produce better ideas. Why not use it for that? You've put too much intelligent stuff out here to try to make me believe you can't help pull the discussion up a notch or two.... Secretly, you know you want to!
I'm pointing out that since their beliefs may cause them to aggress against us we are responsible to a. keep that danger from being forgotten and b. try our best to bring as many 'out of the fold' as we can before the power seekers can use them to aggress against us.That is why I am ...
I ask you, as an atheist, why should I be "open minded" about topics of a religious nature? Would you expect a vegan to listen with rapt attention as you recount your last trip to Tex's Brisket n' Beef Ribs BBQ Pit a detailed description of your recipe for chicken a la king? I have thought about it a great deal, reflected on my personal experiences with the devout and in church, as well as having read the fairy tale books, and I've rejected the concept altogether. So, I am no longer interested in discussing the matter as if it were at all possible that some nasty sky monster had his son impaled by Romans for my benefit 2000 years ago. If that's "close minded [sic]," then so be it. Should I open my mind to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too? How about perpetual motion or phlogiston? One should not be praised for being "open minded" toward bollocks.
I ask you, as an atheist, why should I be "open minded" about topics of a religious nature? Would you expect a vegan to listen with rapt attention as you recount your last trip to Tex's Brisket n' Beef Ribs BBQ Pit or a detailed description of your recipe for chicken a la king? I have thought about it a great deal, reflected on my personal experiences with the devout and in church, as well as having read the fairy tale books, and I've rejected the concept altogether. So, I am no longer interested in discussing the matter as if it were at all possible that some nasty sky monster had his son impaled by Romans for my benefit 2000 years ago. If that's "close minded [sic]," then so be it. Should I open my mind to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too? How about perpetual motion or phlogiston? One should not be praised for being "open minded" toward bollocks.
I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I'm plenty open minded.
Heres an open invitation to anyone who has a religious belief on this board. Tell me what it is, and why you believe it to be true, and I will evaluate it and tell you whether I agree, and the reasons why I do or don't agree.
I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I'm plenty open minded.
Heres an open invitation to anyone who has a religious belief on this board. Tell me what it is, and why you believe it to be true, and I will evaluate it and tell you whether I agree, and the reasons why I do or don't agree.
I believe it is wrong to steal.
The philosopher will tell you it is wrong to steal because since everyone has a reasonable expectation that they dont like to be stolen from, that they canot take from others.
I disagree, and rather assert that although everyone has this reasonable expectation, stealing is wrong because G-d said so.
...stealing is wrong because G-d said so.
I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I'm plenty open minded.
Heres an open invitation to anyone who has a religious belief on this board. Tell me what it is, and why you believe it to be true, and I will evaluate it and tell you whether I agree, and the reasons why I do or don't agree.
I believe it is wrong to steal.
The philosopher will tell you it is wrong to steal because since everyone has a reasonable expectation that they dont like to be stolen from, that they canot take from others.
I disagree, and rather assert that although everyone has this reasonable expectation, stealing is wrong because G-d said so.
Then you're a dipshit.
I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I'm plenty open minded.
Logic only applies to arguments, not insults.I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I'm plenty open minded.
Heres an open invitation to anyone who has a religious belief on this board. Tell me what it is, and why you believe it to be true, and I will evaluate it and tell you whether I agree, and the reasons why I do or don't agree.
I believe it is wrong to steal.
The philosopher will tell you it is wrong to steal because since everyone has a reasonable expectation that they dont like to be stolen from, that they canot take from others.
I disagree, and rather assert that although everyone has this reasonable expectation, stealing is wrong because G-d said so.
Then you're a dipshit.
I hope you can see the irony of a person whose signature is a quote about a logical fallacy (misplaced burden of proof) would only resort to an ad hominem attack.
I believe it is wrong to steal.
The philosopher will tell you it is wrong to steal because since everyone has a reasonable expectation that they dont like to be stolen from, that they canot take from others.
I disagree, and rather assert that although everyone has this reasonable expectation, stealing is wrong because G-d said so.
I am a deist, as such I do not believe in any revealed religions, just a creator. Since most of what we have created is not found in nature, I highly doubt a non-intelligence (nature) could have created life, something we have yet to create, besides bacteria genomes. And even if we could create intelligent life, that would just prove to me even more that it takes intelligence to create life.
As a deist, what is your source for maintaining proper morality?
I'll also add that whatever we have created is made of only things that nature has produced.
Our monkey brains
have simply re-arranged it to be shiny or do something fanciful. Also consider the mind-bending time frame since whatever kicked it all off happened. Takes a long time to evolve to the point where you want to make shiny doo-dads and watch TV.
I hope you can see the irony of a person whose signature is a quote about a logical fallacy (misplaced burden of proof) would only resort to an ad hominem attack.
As a deist, what is your source for maintaining proper morality?
Logic. Or do you mean something else?
I'll also add that whatever we have created is made of only things that nature has produced.
Or what some other intelligent being produced...
Our monkey brains
We have human brains.
have simply re-arranged it to be shiny or do something fanciful. Also consider the mind-bending time frame since whatever kicked it all off happened. Takes a long time to evolve to the point where you want to make shiny doo-dads and watch TV.
I am not sure what your point is? Also, do we have evidence of evolution for all species on earth, like giraffes?
As a deist, what is your source for maintaining proper morality?
Logic. Or do you mean something else?
Just paralleling the conversation with the Cynic re: the need for religious texts to dictate morality. Logic is all that's needed.
As a deist, what is your source for maintaining proper morality?
Logic. Or do you mean something else?
Just paralleling the conversation with the Cynic re: the need for religious texts to dictate morality. Logic is all that's needed.
Right. But what when someone comes up with a logical viewpoint that shatters an established moral?
Art goes into the "playtime" category.
I am just saying it has been my experience that such is not the case. I am a deist, as such I do not believe in any revealed religions, just a creator. Since most of what we have created is not found in nature, I highly doubt a non-intelligence (nature) could have created life, something we have yet to create, besides bacteria genomes. And even if we could create intelligent life, that would just prove to me even more that it takes intelligence to create life.
"The solar system must be younger than a million years because even if the sun were made of solid coal and oxygen it would have burned up within that time at the rate it generates heat." (An argument from ignorance, from 19th century encyclopedias, based on the assumption that because there was no means known at that time of producing heat more efficient than coal, this logically put a limit on the Sun's possible age. In fact in the 20th century with the discovery of radioactivity and nuclear fusion, the sun's age was more correctly dated at many billions of years old instead. The 'ignorance' in this case was assuming that no fuel source could be more efficient than coal and oxygen.)
prolly philosophy tooArt goes into the "playtime" category.
Nope.
Logic only applies to arguments, not insults.I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I'm plenty open minded.
Heres an open invitation to anyone who has a religious belief on this board. Tell me what it is, and why you believe it to be true, and I will evaluate it and tell you whether I agree, and the reasons why I do or don't agree.
I believe it is wrong to steal.
The philosopher will tell you it is wrong to steal because since everyone has a reasonable expectation that they dont like to be stolen from, that they canot take from others.
I disagree, and rather assert that although everyone has this reasonable expectation, stealing is wrong because G-d said so.
Then you're a dipshit.
I hope you can see the irony of a person whose signature is a quote about a logical fallacy (misplaced burden of proof) would only resort to an ad hominem attack.
So, you're transgendered, eh?
I wonder... you know how people who get limbs amputated still "feel" the amputated limb for years after its gone. Its called phantom limb syndrome. Do you have it for your missing genetillia?
there is lots of evidence for Abiogenisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Soup.22_theory_today:_Miller.27s_experiment_and_subsequent_work)
Evolution is pretty much as close to proven fact as its possible to get.
I'll assume that you agree with both these premises, and that by "create life" you mean create the conditions for life. If however you think there is a theory with more evidence than evolution and abiogenesis, then I'll be happy to talk about those, but I'm trying to keep this post to a reasonable size.
Even if there was no evidence on abiogenesis or evolution, it would not make your position any more or less reasonable.
Whether or not we know how life was made does nothing to address the validity in claims about god.
We don't know where X came from so god must have made X is deeply flawed thinking, it also works for every conceivable deity.
What reason is there to believe your deity made the universe anymore than Nyx, Ymir, or transdimensional pixies?
In your words you've already structured the issue so that a god is a neccesary answer. for life to be created, it needs a creator.
I'll come at this in 2 ways.
1. The reasoning that, because we don't know the origin of life, or the origin of existence, is not answered in anyway by saying a god did it. What made the god? the usual answer is, it was just there / was always there. This adds nothing, you could equally say the universe was there.
It does nothing to explain a mystery (how did existence come about?) by replacing it by a bigger mystery (how did god come about?).
2. You are not providing any evidence for the existence of a creator god. You have merely stated that because you do not know any other way life could have come about, god must have done this.
The thing is, your argument is that life happened out of randomness, just because we do not have proof of a Creator.
"It is a falsehood to believe atheism to be the opposing view of deism. It is not a choice between either the universe has no reason or explanation, or it was made by a god. Atheism is merely addressing the claim of existence of gods.
I'm not sure where the idea comes about that it is so terrible to accept that there are some things that are impossible to know at the present moment, and why therefore by default, any explanation must be more valid than no explanation."
The argument from both sides really boils down to, "we do not know for sure how life started".
I can respect your side, that the burden of proof is to show that a Creator did create life. And I would hope that you would respect my side, that says that given our experience, it would seem a Creator must have created life.
It would make you less inclined to believe in silly things, like God or the Law of Attraction.
It simply amazes me the efforts atheists go to, to convince others there is no God. How would it improve my life to believe that there was not a Creator? Would it make me happier, richer, or live longer?
As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.
As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.
It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.
As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.
It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.
Yeah, I agree, that is such a silly notion to think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. How silly to think the Creator has always existed.
As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.
It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.
Yeah, I agree, that is such a silly notion to think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. How silly to think the Creator has always existed.
Wow, you are quite the king of straw men in this thread. Dylboz didn't say a thing about whether it's possible for something to always exist or not.
I do find it interesting that you apparently think the Creator is material, though.....
As if the idea that an intelligent being can create things using natural laws is silly.
It is if that "intelligent being" has to exist outside of and prior to all of the matter being created, in violation of those very natural laws. What you describe is a fundamental contradiction. A logical impossibility.
Yeah, I agree, that is such a silly notion to think that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. How silly to think the Creator has always existed.
Wow, you are quite the king of straw men in this thread. Dylboz didn't say a thing about whether it's possible for something to always exist or not.
I do find it interesting that you apparently think the Creator is material, though.....
I fixed it.
And yes, I do think the Creator is material. How could an immaterial intelligence do anything?
It simply amazes me the efforts atheists go to, to convince others there is no God. How would it improve my life to believe that there was not a Creator? Would it make me happier, richer, or live longer?
So this Creator actually didn't create anything, then?
Because if he/she/it didn't exist prior to all matter, then it couldn't have created it, because it is part of it.
If you have always existed, then decide to create something, you obviously existed prior to, and are exclusive from, that creation.
And as Dylboz notes, even material intelligences can only create things from previously existing material. If the Creator is the only material thing which has always existed, then what did it use to make everything to start with?
I just believe God manipulates matter.
I believe God existed before earth and the Sun.
All matter has always existed.
if you're content to believe in things there is no evidence to believe in for stupid reasons then theres absolutely nowhere to go from here.
if you're content to believe in things there is no evidence to believe in for stupid reasons then theres absolutely nowhere to go from here.
Calling my reasons stupid is awfully close to calling me stupid. I agree there is nowhere to go from here. Your condescending attitude has completely manifested itself.
If you believe in something there is no evidence for then its a stupid belief.Is there any evidence that rights exist?
If you believe in something there is no evidence for then its a stupid belief.
but there is no unspoiled outback wilderness where one can go to observe "rights" frolicking in their natural environment.
And as Dylboz notes, even material intelligences can only create things from previously existing material. If the Creator is the only material thing which has always existed, then what did it use to make everything to start with?
I did not say that the Creator is the only material thing which has always existed. All matter has always existed.
And as Dylboz notes, even material intelligences can only create things from previously existing material. If the Creator is the only material thing which has always existed, then what did it use to make everything to start with?
I did not say that the Creator is the only material thing which has always existed. All matter has always existed.
Err....what is the point of a Creator, then?
Are you unable to believe that things are the way they are just because of the natural forces of the universe?
Are you unable to believe that things are the way they are just because of the natural forces of the universe?Obviously the answer is yes, I am unable to believe that.
Bullshitty bullshit is bullshit bullshit. Now, bullshit bullshit, meaning your face is bullshit. This leads me to say bullshit bullshit. Which means you are bullshit. So in conclusion bullshit.
Bullshitty bullshit is bullshit bullshit. Now, bullshit bullshit, meaning your face is bullshit. This leads me to say bullshit bullshit. Which means you are bullshit. So in conclusion bullshit.
Shouldn't you be out beating gays to death instead of shitting all over yourself on internet forums?
Bullshitty bullshit is bullshit bullshit. Now, bullshit bullshit, meaning your face is bullshit. This leads me to say bullshit bullshit. Which means you are bullshit. So in conclusion bullshit.
Shouldn't you be out beating gays to death instead of shitting all over yourself on internet forums?
Are you retarded or something? You didn't get how I spent pages explaining why we couldn't do that?
You're probably too hardheaded to understand any point thats not beaten into your head with a baseball bat via morse code.
There are deductive logical proofs that there is a God, at least that there is a creator or initiator.
Did Spidey say that God somehow evolved from some sort of matter, and then went on to manipulate matter into beings?
Did Spidey say that God somehow evolved from some sort of matter, and then went on to manipulate matter into beings?
No, Spidey said that God has always existed, is material, and manipulates other matter.
Primacy of Existence always works as to why God cannot be the first cause.That's exactly the whole point! God is that unexplainable force that initiated the universe. You can't explain it, but there must be something that initiated everything. Call that force what you will, I call it God.
Considerations.
1) If God is outside of Time and Space how can God initiate any function that is Time-like and Space-like? Or how can God create without there being a basis for creation?
2) If God is first cause, how did come to be?
3) If God knows everything then why did God create the Universe as it is? (With good and evil and etc, although at the same time is an "ALL GOOD" God?)
That's exactly the whole point! God is that unexplainable force that initiated the universe. You can't explain it, but there must be something that initiated everything. Call that force what you will, I call it God.
That's exactly the whole point! God is that unexplainable force that initiated the universe. You can't explain it, but there must be something that initiated everything. Call that force what you will, I call it God.
We can't explain it now, but that doesn't mean we won't ever. What's the point of taking the unknown and calling it "God" instead of just being honest and saying "I don't know"?
That's exactly the whole point! God is that unexplainable force that initiated the universe. You can't explain it, but there must be something that initiated everything. Call that force what you will, I call it God.
Point 3 is fallacious as it relies on the assumption that this great initiator is human-like or even has feelings. Just because you're used to all the Christians and Muslims babbling on about how God "does things for a reason" doesn't mean that the "great initiator" (or whatever the hell you'd prefer to call it) is anything like a human or even explainable in human emotions.
God is that unexplainable force that initiated the universe. You can't explain it, but there must be something that initiated everything.
I've ben saying it for years...
"Religion is the politics of spirituality"
Spirituality can be oversimplified by:
Spirituality is the way we cope with things we can not otherwise explain. Whether we cope by saying "I don't understand and I'm cool with it" or "if I can't come up with an explanation, (insert name of omniscient omnipotent idol here)'s will...unless it makes him look bad then it was 'freewill' or (some other omniscient omnipotent idol)" or "I think it, therefore it is" or whatever else one comes up with...In a liberal* society (not Liberal society), each individual is free to choose the coping mechanism(s) they desire and no one else cares because they believe in freedom for the other person as much as for themselves.
* liberal: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible
I've ben saying it for years...
: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible
That sounds great and all, but you're using a non-standard definition of "spirituality," and you haven't explained why there should be a "politics" of coping with things we can't understand.
Some people cope with things they can't understand by saying "God did it." Those people I would say are religious.
Some people cope with things they can't understand by saying "I don't know" or "I'll find out." There is nothing religious about that, unless you warp the definition of "religion" into something that won't be recognized by the lay believer, the clergy, or the academic.
A person isn't religious when they say about things they dont understand "G-d did it". One Rabbi we had who regularly came to our Yeshiva would regularly make fun of that view. Maybe christiand and muslims do that, I wouldnt know.
Then the Universe is God? Nice faulty reasoning there, Demosthenes. :lol:That's not faulty reasoning at all.
Then the Universe is God? Nice faulty reasoning there, Demosthenes. :lol:That's not faulty reasoning at all.
Pantheism attributes everything to God.Come one, lets not insult God then with saying he made Barak Obama. :lol:
You gotta take the good with the bad, I guess.Pantheism attributes everything to God.Come one, lets not insult God then with saying he made Barak Obama. :lol:
No. A small part does not equal the whole.
No. A small part does not equal the whole.
pffffffft. You want logic to be used here?
ALL things have a starting point, it's a logical necessity that the universe has one too. That thing which has no starting point, that's what you call God.
ALL things have a starting point, it's a logical necessity that the universe has one too. That thing which has no starting point, that's what you call God.
He doesn't obey those laws.ALL things have a starting point, it's a logical necessity that the universe has one too. That thing which has no starting point, that's what you call God.
If you believe that, then why have you chosen to obey laws from a book- especially one with a specific God?
If you're going to claim that God made all the energy, but yet you have no evidence of what this god is or how it operates, merely that it must be what started the universe, then why not just say the universe started itself?I think he has said Judaism is pantheistic, so he is pretty much saying that the universe started itself.
He doesn't obey those laws.ALL things have a starting point, it's a logical necessity that the universe has one too. That thing which has no starting point, that's what you call God.
If you believe that, then why have you chosen to obey laws from a book- especially one with a specific God?
ALL things have a starting point, it's a logical necessity that the universe has one too. That thing which has no starting point, that's what you call God.
That sounds great and all, but you're using a non-standard definition of "spirituality," and you haven't explained why there should be a "politics" of coping with things we can't understand.
Some people cope with things they can't understand by saying "God did it." Those people I would say are religious.
Some people cope with things they can't understand by saying "I don't know" or "I'll find out." There is nothing religious about that, unless you warp the definition of "religion" into something that won't be recognized by the lay believer, the clergy, or the academic.
Therefore, Obama is God?
Well then that is what you'd call God.ALL things have a starting point, it's a logical necessity that the universe has one too. That thing which has no starting point, that's what you call God.An infinite time is impossible for finite beings to grasp, but that does not mean that such might not be the case. The conception of an eternal deity is just as difficult to comprehend.
Hhrrmm.... There you all go again, batting around the pros and cons of a specific moral question while studiously avoiding its impact on the big picture of liberty vs. slavery....You're welcome, no extra charge.
Do try and get over yourself.
Just being a little douchebaggish to make a point.... Really, you're one of the folks on this board who is smart and gets it. Don't you ever feel the desire to start pushing the discussion in a more productive direction? I tend to be absent from here for long stretches just because there's so much mindless jabber and endless repetition to crawl through to find something good to read. Its rough, and I know you get annoyed too.... I'm just saying, this IS our board, no one is controlling the content.... Its a perfect place to demonstrate the power of free exchange to produce better ideas. Why not use it for that? You've put too much intelligent stuff out here to try to make me believe you can't help pull the discussion up a notch or two.... Secretly, you know you want to!
Now why would I want to go and make being here feel like work? If my job were Professional Discussion Pusher, then I would be happy to do it. But as it stands, I prefer to enjoy myself here. That means posting carefully thought-out responses when the mood compels me, and goofing around when it doesn't. Besides, when I do post a carefully considered commentary on a subject, more often than not most people pass it by completely because they don't want to tackle anything that takes a while to read. And that's not a slam against them, because they're just here to enjoy themselves too.
As for "jabber and endless repetition".....every point you just made in your lengthier post above has already been made on this forum whenever the topic of religion comes up. That doesn't make it mindless, but it is at least repetitive. You can't really blame people for not wanting to just reiterate the same points over and over, no matter how good or relevant those points may be. And in my experience, berating people for not talking about what you want to discuss is not a very effective way to get them to do it.
My point is, it makes no difference whether you say "God did it", "Allah did it", "Buddah did it", etc...it is using spirituality to cope.
I guess you could say spirituality is faith.
Religion is what differentiates the political factions of spirituality
Yes, it is. That doesn't mean that coping is itself spirituality.
What do you mean by "political" in this context?
Yes, it is. That doesn't mean that coping is itself spirituality.I didn't say it was.
Spirituality is the way we cope with things we can not otherwise explain.
What do you mean by "political" in this context?
As practiced by the Rs & Ds and religions, politics is the art of dividing and controlling people of minimally dissimilar interests.
Yes, it is. That doesn't mean that coping is itself spirituality.I didn't say it was.
Yes you did:Spirituality is the way we cope with things we can not otherwise explain.[\quote]
I understand your confusion...I'm not sure if I can adequately explain the difference, but I'll give it a whirl...
Spirituality is not coping, spirituality is a tool for coping.QuoteWhat about religions which don't divide or control people?
I've never heard of one...
The Religion 101 final exam: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/religion101.html (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/religion101.html)
Some people here will get a good chuckle out of this, I think....
I like how a caller (Lue) bickered with Mark about going from rationalism to pantheism.
I like how a caller (Lue) bickered with Mark about going from rationalism to pantheism.
I laughed out loud when he brought that up too. For anybody that missed it, I posted it below.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TO73fNTftg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TO73fNTftg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
No Gods, No Masters, on Earth or in Heaven! Religion is metaphysical statism, and should be rejected by anti-statists (anarchists and libertarians) as such.
Metaphysical statism.. hmmm. Where are you deriving this "should" from? By what authority?
No Gods, No Masters, on Earth or in Heaven! Religion is metaphysical statism, and should be rejected by anti-statists (anarchists and libertarians) as such.
Dylboz,
Metaphysical statism.. hmmm. Where are you deriving this "should" from? By what authority?
There seems to be a misconception about what libertarianism is and isn't. Libertarianism is only a political philosophy. For example, it doesn't inform us about what religion, if any, is correct. Ian, and to a lesser extent Mark, seem to muddy this issue. Ian is definitely anti-Christian (not the AntiChrist) and that's fine. I, myself, am not a Christian although I wouldn't characterize myself as anti-Christian. I just wish that when he talks about religion that he would make the point that these are his personal, cultural views and not political views. A new listener may think he is one of those 'liberal" types who wants to use the state against religion.